Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP (Read 5991 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

My first post here! I hope I made this thread in the correct section. However, I got a question about a repress that I'm about to get. It's about the rock/pop band "Kent" that is one of the most famous artists here in Sweden. In the 90's they released vinyls on their studiomaster recordings that was limited to about 500 - 1000 releases each. These vinyls become quite rare and a 12" in good condition could cost about 700 $ on auction. But they celebrated their 20 anniversary and last week they released a new repress with most of their albums. The backside is that they was "missing" the original studiomasters so they had to use the CD master for repress. So I wonder if I should get the old vinyls in "mint"-condition since they will sound better? HOW much loss in quality will this be? How big would impact be? Would it sound like a CD or what? I mean it's still analogue sound!? I'm about to order Martin Logan ECL speakers and Pioneer A-70 reciever and then a turnatable... Maybe a Rega RP6 or something similar. I want to be sure that it sounds good to my ears. Sorry about my English. It's a bit poor since I'm in hurry.

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #1 –
Quote from: a-rebirth on
My first post here! I hope I made this thread in the correct section. However, I got a question about a repress that I'm about to get. It's about the rock/pop band "Kent" that is one of the most famous artists here in Sweden. In the 90's they released vinyls on their studiomaster recordings that was limited to about 500 - 1000 releases each. These vinyls become quite rare and a 12" in good condition could cost about 700 $ on auction. But they celebrated their 20 anniversary and last week they released a new repress with most of their albums. The backside is that they was "missing" the original studiomasters so they had to use the CD master for repress. So I wonder if I should get the old vinyls in "mint"-condition since they will sound better? HOW much loss in quality will this be? How big would impact be? Would it sound like a CD or what? I mean it's still analogue sound!? I'm about to order Martin Logan ECL speakers and Pioneer A-70 reciever and then a turnatable... Maybe a Rega RP6 or something similar. I want to be sure that it sounds good to my ears. Sorry about my English. It's a bit poor since I'm in hurry.


What is your goal?  Memorabilia?  Better Sound Quality?

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #2 –
Well, you learn something every... now and then. I always thought 'Kent' was a person, not a band. They've collaborated with The Nits in the past, which is where I first heard of them.

Anyway, there really isn't enough information to say whether the CD master is substantially different to the original vinyl release. Have you heard any of the CDs? Do they sound good? Will the reissues have bonus tracks?

My instinct would be to buy the reissues unless you want the discs as an investment. Going for the originals will cost a hell of a lot of money - a lot more than any (probably minor) difference in sound quality. The only time I've shelled out a lot for an original pressing was for an album that was never reissued after its original run, so the choice was that or nothing.

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #4 –
Quote
Have you heard any of the CDs? Do they sound good?
I've never heard of the band, so I've never heard their records or CDs.    But with the kind of investment you're considering, go ahead and buy the CD or download the MP3s.    Even if you only listen once and decide to try the vinyl, the cost of the CD/MP3 is insignificant compared to the overall investment.   

Quote
These vinyls become quite rare and a 12" in good condition could cost about 700 $ on auction...

...So I wonder if I should get the old vinyls in "mint"-condition since they will sound better?
IMO - You'd have to be very rich or very foolish to spend $700 on a record... and then actually PLAY  it!!!    It's going to wear and deteriorate every time you play it, and it might get some additional accidental damage.

Quote
HOW much loss in quality will this be? How big would impact be? Would it sound like a CD or what?
Several things...  It won't sound exactly like the CD.  Vinyl is noisier than CD (you'll hear the background noise between tracks even if the record doesn't have clicks & pops).    And the master cutting & playback process has frequency response variations (hopefully slight) that will also affect the sound, and if everything isn't "just right", you can get audible distortion.   

If you digitize an analog record and make a CD, the CD can sound exactly like the record.  But, if you cut a record from a CD, it will always sound different.

Also, we don't know if the CD used the same master as the original vinyl.  If they used different masters whichever one "sounds better" is a matter of personal preference & taste.

Technically (noise, frequency response, and distortion), CDs are superior to vinyl.  CDs are better than human hearing, and vinyl is worse than human hearing.

Artistically, it's a matter of taste.    Some people prefer the sound of vinyl and in that case we can't say the CD "sounds better", because to those who prefer vinyl, vinyl sounds better.    A (perhaps bad) analogy might be comparing an oil painting to a photo...  The photo might be more accurate, but the painting might "look better" on the wall.  And,  you can take a photo of the painting and it will look like the painting, but if you make a painting of the photo it's not going to look like the photo.

Quote
and then a turnatable... Maybe a Rega RP6 or something similar.
Your finances are none of my business, but that's a significant investment just to play a few Kent records.  You'll also need a phono cartridge, and if the receiver doesn't have a phono input you'll need a phono preamp.

Have you ever had a turntable before?  Do you already have a record collection?    If not, but you still want to try vinyl and you don't mind spending a few hundred dollars, I'd suggest spending $300-400 on a good quality direct-drive "DJ style"  turntable.    If your receiver doesn't have a preamp, you can get a turntable with a preamp and USB built-in.  (All USB turntables have a preamp, and since they already have the preamp, most also have line-level analog outputs), and $70 more on Shure's best cartridge.    (Of course, prices may be different in Sweden.)

Then if you really like vinyl, you can upgrade later if you wish.    But, after a certain point the biggest limitation on sound quality is the record itself.  So you can spend a LOT more money you MIGHT get a little (or no) sound improvement, although any different cartridge will probably sound different.

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #5 –
Quote
IMO - You'd have to be very rich or very foolish to spend $700 on a record... and then actually PLAY  it!!![/b]    It's going to wear and deteriorate every time you play it, and it might get some additional accidental damage.


Yes, I know. But my intentions is actually to record it for personal use first time. I already got my Asus Xonar STX prepared for 24 bit 192 khz FLAC recordings to use in my PLEX server.

Quote
Several things...  It won't sound exactly like the CD.  Vinyl is noisier than CD (you'll hear the background noise between tracks even if the record doesn't have clicks & pops).    And the master cutting & playback process has frequency response variations (hopefully slight) that will also affect the sound, and if everything isn't "just right", you can get audible distortion.


Yes, I know about this. I've got a few vinyls over the past years. Not a bunch of them but a few at least... But it really depends on the condition as you tell. That is why I think an old LP in mint condition would make sense. As long it has not scratches and no defects I will record (or listen) to it without being annoyed by distraction. Pedantic handling and cleaning will also minimize that noise.

Quote
If you digitize an analog record and make a CD, the CD can sound exactly like the record.  But, if you cut a record from a CD, it will always sound different.
Also, we don't know if the CD used the same master as the original vinyl.  If they used different masters whichever one "sounds better" is a matter of personal preference & taste.

Technically (noise, frequency response, and distortion), CDs are superior to vinyl.  CDs are better than human hearing, and vinyl is worse than human hearing.

Artistically, it's a matter of taste.    Some people prefer the sound of vinyl and in that case we can't say the CD "sounds better", because to those who prefer vinyl, vinyl sounds better.    A (perhaps bad) analogy might be comparing an oil painting to a photo...  The photo might be more accurate, but the painting might "look better" on the wall.  And,  you can take a photo of the painting and it will look like the painting, but if you make a painting of the photo it's not going to look like the photo.


To me 24 bit 192 khz sound a lot "better" than 24 bit 94 khz on my reciever. But as I understand CD master are recorded in 94 khz? So, if the repress is mastered from 94 khz I may not think it will sound that "good"? I sounds like a CD you mean? Even if it's analogue? Could it be compared as burning ordinary CD files to a SACD medium and ripping it to PC with 24 bit FLAC files? In such case it would be considered as lossy transcoding? This is not my field, so I'm a bit confused. So, some clearance would be appreciated. Really.

Quote
Then if you really like vinyl, you can upgrade later if you wish.
   

Yes, I had 3 turntables before. The cheapest Denon model about 5- 8 years ago. Then I got a vintage turntable from a brand I don't remember. But it was a common brand in the medium range. Then I got a NAD C555i turntable a few years ago when it was released. But I've listened at friends places and at HIFI stores. I feel ready to step up a bit. And my current budget is about 1000 $ for a turntable. I working with IT (Security) in Sweden and not living by myself, so the money is not a huge problem. I would somewhat define myself as an audiophile. So, DJ stuff is not in my direction. And I don't want to list all my current or upcoming equipment since it may be irrelevant to the topic. That's why I didn't mention the cartridge or preamp.

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #6 –
Quote from: JabbaThePrawn on
Well, you learn something every... now and then. I always thought 'Kent' was a person, not a band. They've collaborated with The Nits in the past, which is where I first heard of them.

Anyway, there really isn't enough information to say whether the CD master is substantially different to the original vinyl release. Have you heard any of the CDs? Do they sound good? Will the reissues have bonus tracks?

My instinct would be to buy the reissues unless you want the discs as an investment. Going for the originals will cost a hell of a lot of money - a lot more than any (probably minor) difference in sound quality. The only time I've shelled out a lot for an original pressing was for an album that was never reissued after its original run, so the choice was that or nothing.


They're signed to RCA Records (flagship label owned by Sony) and has been counted as Sweden's most popular band. So, I won't complain about the production or recordings in general. But to my ears the vinyls sound better. I had the original vinyl press of "Röd" ("Red") and I've to say that the LP sounded pretty much better to my ears at least. Especially the track "Töntarna". As I told you a vinyl could cost 700 $. But that was maybe the turning point a few years ago... So, the repress costs *only* 30 bucks. If you're looking for bonus tracks I should really recommend you to get the box 1991 - 2008 on CD. It has most of the bonus tracks and official remixes from the singles and elsewhere before 2008.

The reissue does not seem to have any bonus tracks but this time it's 180g (heavier) vinyls that should improve the sound a bit. I hope...

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #7 –
OK.  You are familiar with vinyl, you know what it sounds like, and I won't worry about how you spend your money!

Quote
To me 24 bit 192 khz sound a lot "better" than 24 bit 94 khz on my receiver
First, be careful about your claims (including unsupported "opinions") and PLEASE make sure you comply with TOS #8.  We try to avoid "audiophile nonsense" here and the moderators take that rule VERY SERIOUSLY  (and they might not say, "please"  ).

There could be something wrong with your set-up or something wrong with your down-sampling, or you are comparing "apples to oranges", and I'm guessing you've never done any proper, scientific, blind, level-matched ABX listening tests.    Since "CD quality" (16-bit/44.1kHz) is better than human hearing, if you take a "high resolution" file and down-sample it to CD quality, you won't hear any difference in a proper ABX test.   

A lot of people (especially critical listeners who care  more about sound quality than the average person) think they have "golden ears", until they do a blind ABX test and it turns-out they can't really hear those "night and day" differences.  You MIGHT even be surprised how hard it is to tell a good (high bitrate) MP3 from a high-resolution original in an ABX test...  You usually have to listen very carefully to hear a difference, if  you can hear a difference at all.  (It depends on the program material and your ability to hear compression artifacts, and not so much to do with the equipment, although headphones usually help.)

There's nothing wrong with using high resolution for viny (except you get larger files).  But, with a vinyl noise floor around -60dB (at best), any "details" beyond 12 or 13 bits are dominated by (masked by) noise, contributing NOTHING to sound quality.  You can't record at 13-bits, so 16-bits is plenty-good enough.

A lot of people think analog has "infinite resolution", but that's like saying my analog tape measure (or a piece of string, which is more "analog" than a tape measure) has higher resolution than my digital calipers.    (Nobody thinks analog VHS tape has higher resolution than DVD or Blu-Ray.  ) 

Quote
But as I understand CD master are recorded in 94 khz? So, if the repress is mastered from 94 kHz
CDs are 16-bit, 44.1kHz, stereo, and the master has that format.  Most pro studios record and mix at 24/96 but there are no rules for that.  Audio mixing & editing software usually works internally at 32-bit floating-point or 64-bit floating-point for "technical reasons".    When the stereo mix is sent out for mastering,  it's usually 24-bit or 32-bit floating-point.  That's usually up to the studio making the stereo mix, and the mastering engineer can use either one.

Quote
I may not think it will sound that "good"? I sounds like a CD you mean?
  You can "capture" (record) the analog vinyl and convert it to digital with very high accuracy.  If you make a CD, it should sound exactly like the vinyl (unless something's wrong such as recording with a cheap-noisy soundcard).    But if you make a vinyl record from the CD or from the CD master, it will not be the same.  There will be more noise on the record (which you'll hear during silence and maybe during quiet passages) and you might hear distortion and frequency response variations. 

Quote
Even if it's analogue? Could it be compared as burning ordinary CD files to a SACD medium and ripping it to PC with 24 bit FLAC files? In such case it would be considered as lossy transcoding?
Sorry, I don't understand your question.  Up-sampling (from CD to SACD or to 24/96) doesn't improve resolution or quality.  Adding more bits (filled with zeros) has no effect at all.  Up-sampling the sample-rate (kHz) is theoretically or mathematically imperfect and not perfectly reversible.    But, practically speaking it's considered  a lossless process and you'd probably have to go through dozens of generations of up/sampling/down-sampling before you could hear a difference (unless something goes wrong).    If you make a small volume changed digitally, there can be some rounding (or a slight loss of resolution if you reduce the volume), so that's mathematically imperfect, but it's done thousands of times during audio mixing/editing/production and is considered lossless in the audio production world (and an analog volume change isn't mathematically perfect either).

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #8 –
A couple of things of note:

1.  If you're actually planning to listen to the vinyl repeatedly, I would not invest the money.  Albums wear out over time.  CDs don't.  Those rare limited release albums won't sound the same after a few years of play.  If you're buying the albums to collect them, or because they come with additional memorabilia, then go for it.  And, CDs can easily be ripped to FLAC or some lossy format for use on your computer or phone.  Ripping vinyl is a lot harder.

2. Do you have a listening room?  Do you listen to vinyl now?  Do you have pets?  Kids?  The last thing anyone needs is to put a record on, drop the needle and have their cat decided to jump on the turntable lid, or have 2 kids run through the room chasing each other.

If you can find a record store that has the vinyl from the 90s, I'd ask to hear it and compare it to the CD.

I've spent the last couple of months buying older used CDs (originally releases before they were "remastered" for the loudness wars).  Those CDs from the 80s all have warnings on them that the source material is analog, and the higher resolution of the CD may reveal flaws in the master recording that are not present on vinyl or tape.  Now we've come full circle with these wild claims that somehow analog is far superior.

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #9 –
Quote from: a-rebirth on
They're signed to RCA Records (flagship label owned by Sony) and has been counted as Sweden's most popular band.

That must be news to Abba. And even Roxette, for that matter.

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #10 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
I've spent the last couple of months buying older used CDs (originally releases before they were "remastered" for the loudness wars).  Those CDs from the 80s all have warnings on them that the source material is analog, and the higher resolution of the CD may reveal flaws in the master recording that are not present on vinyl or tape.  Now we've come full circle with these wild claims that somehow analog is far superior.


Ditto, more or less. For over a year I've been flogging the local estate sale circuit with similar goals. I'm looking for and finding rafts of the CD's that were sold when the recordings were fresh and not yet remastered to be good background music.  Usually pay from a buck to 3 bucks a disc, with some boxed sets sold for the price of a bare disc, and at worst sold based on how many discs are the box.  What I'd like to find but am not finding are any music centric video DVDs. Those are like hen's teeth.

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: apastuszak on
I've spent the last couple of months buying older used CDs (originally releases before they were "remastered" for the loudness wars).  Those CDs from the 80s all have warnings on them that the source material is analog, and the higher resolution of the CD may reveal flaws in the master recording that are not present on vinyl or tape.  Now we've come full circle with these wild claims that somehow analog is far superior.


Ditto, more or less. For over a year I've been flogging the local estate sale circuit with similar goals. I'm looking for and finding rafts of the CD's that were sold when the recordings were fresh and not yet remastered to be good background music.  Usually pay from a buck to 3 bucks a disc, with some boxed sets sold for the price of a bare disc, and at worst sold based on how many discs are the box.  What I'd like to find but am not finding are any music centric video DVDs. Those are like hen's teeth.


The store near me sells used CDs for $6.00@/4 for $20.  I do my Saturday morning trip there and poke around, before the wife and kids get up.  The guy has a huge vinyl collection also, and has a lot of people poking around in there.  I gave up on vinyl as soon as CDs came out.  I used to buy albums, record them to tape and use the tape.  When the tape wore out, I'd record the album again.  All my albums were played maybe a half dozen times at most.  I was so happy when CD players were being added to cars and I could skip copying my albums to tape.  Digital music has such a huge increase in convenience over what came before it.

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #12 –
Quote
That must be news to Abba. And even Roxette, for that matter.


Sorry for not being specific. They used to state themselves as Sweden's most popular band in Sweden... not globally.

Quote
1. If you're actually planning to listen to the vinyl repeatedly, I would not invest the money. Albums wear out over time. CDs don't. Those rare limited release albums won't sound the same after a few years of play. If you're buying the albums to collect them, or because they come with additional memorabilia, then go for it. And, CDs can easily be ripped to FLAC or some lossy format for use on your computer or phone. Ripping vinyl is a lot harder.

2. Do you have a listening room? Do you listen to vinyl now? Do you have pets? Kids? The last thing anyone needs is to put a record on, drop the needle and have their cat decided to jump on the turntable lid, or have 2 kids run through the room chasing each other.


Kids are about to grow up now and the cat got himself killed in the forest. I won't listen or record only Kent. I will listen to a lot other music as well. I studied systems sciences at an advanced level a few years ago and has also been working with computers as a profession. My home theater and HIFI is one of my passions... It could be a very time consuming passion though. But I've learned how to rip a CD in EAC or record vinyl in Audacity. I did it some time ago at least. If I would get stuck I just check the docs or reading a tutorial.

Quote
CDs are 16-bit, 44.1kHz, stereo, and the master has that format. Most pro studios record and mix at 24/96 but there are no rules for that. Audio mixing & editing software usually works internally at 32-bit floating-point or 64-bit floating-point for "technical reasons". When the stereo mix is sent out for mastering, it's usually 24-bit or 32-bit floating-point. That's usually up to the studio making the stereo mix, and the mastering engineer can use either one.


I messed up the values. I aimed at "24/96" and not "94".

Quote
You can "capture" (record) the analog vinyl and convert it to digital with very high accuracy. If you make a CD, it should sound exactly like the vinyl (unless something's wrong such as recording with a cheap-noisy soundcard). But if you make a vinyl record from the CD or from the CD master, it will not be the same. There will be more noise on the record (which you'll hear during silence and maybe during quiet passages) and you might hear distortion and frequency response variations


I got the Xonar Essence STX (as I mentioned) that is able to record (up to) 24/192.

Quote
Sorry, I don't understand your question. Up-sampling (from CD to SACD or to 24/96) doesn't improve resolution or quality. Adding more bits (filled with zeros) has no effect at all. Up-sampling the sample-rate (kHz) is theoretically or mathematically imperfect and not perfectly reversible. But, practically speaking it's considered a lossless process and you'd probably have to go through dozens of generations of up/sampling/down-sampling before you could hear a difference (unless something goes wrong). If you make a small volume changed digitally, there can be some rounding (or a slight loss of resolution if you reduce the volume), so that's mathematically imperfect, but it's done thousands of times during audio mixing/editing/production and is considered lossless in the audio production world (and an analog volume change isn't mathematically perfect either).


If the media files (FLAC) would be recorded to 24/192 from a vinyl that is using the CD master (which tend to be 16-bit?) instead of the studio master. Would it still be 24/192 or would it sound like a CD? I'm wondering because bits are digital and a vinyl is analogue. How much impact has the mastering on the recorded media files?

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #13 –
Quote from: a-rebirth on
If the media files (FLAC) would be recorded to 24/192 from a vinyl that is using the CD master (which tend to be 16-bit?) instead of the studio master. Would it still be 24/192 or would it sound like a CD? I'm wondering because bits are digital and a vinyl is analogue. How much impact has the mastering on the recorded media files?


If you make your FLACs in any format from 16/44 to 24/192 the sound quality of any is indistinguishable from all the rest.

If you make your FLACs from LPs then they will be "Gifted" with the usual audible technical deficiencies or if you will the audible features of LPs - the usual audible noise and distortion which some seem to prefer.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that unlike LPs' the CD format all by itself is totally  free of audible artifacts.

A CD that is cleanly made from a studio master sounds exactly like that studio master. If it sounds different, which is not uncommon in modern times, its because someone processed it to sound different. 

If you just hook up the CD mastering device straight through to the digital outputs of the players used with studio masters, the CD's coming out of the pressing plant will be audibly indistinguishable from the master.

If a sample rate conversion is required because the master was made at a higher bitrate, sample rate conversion between higher bitrates and CD format when done to modern standards is also sonically perfect.

What can't be determined from a distance is the technical competence and goals of the production persons.

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #14 –
Quote from: a-rebirth on
If the media files (FLAC) would be recorded to 24/192 from a vinyl that is using the CD master (which tend to be 16-bit?) instead of the studio master. Would it still be 24/192 or would it sound like a CD? I'm wondering because bits are digital and a vinyl is analogue. How much impact has the mastering on the recorded media files?


If you rip a vinyl LP to FLAC at 16/44, or 24/192, or any other audibly transparent rate then you will technically have a file with the rate you recorded at.  Having said that you will have audio content in that file that will really only be around 12-13 bits of resolution (on a good day) with the rest of the bits essentially encoding noise.

If the LP is pressed from a CD master, then the LP will have worse quality than the CD just like an LP will have worse quality than virtually any higher resolution master used to produce it. They start out audibly degraded and get worse with every use.

What I get from an LP is a greater appreciation for what we have available since the dawn of the digital audio age. It's a window into a past when our audio reproduction capabilities were basically the equivalent of stone wheels and animal skin loin clothes. We were audio neanderthals back then.

It's a terrible format best left in the past.

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #15 –
Quote from: a-rebirth on
My first post here! I hope I made this thread in the correct section. However, I got a question about a repress that I'm about to get. It's about the rock/pop band "Kent" that is one of the most famous artists here in Sweden. In the 90's they released vinyls on their studiomaster recordings that was limited to about 500 - 1000 releases each. These vinyls become quite rare and a 12" in good condition could cost about 700 $ on auction. But they celebrated their 20 anniversary and last week they released a new repress with most of their albums. The backside is that they was "missing" the original studiomasters so they had to use the CD master for repress. So I wonder if I should get the old vinyls in "mint"-condition since they will sound better? HOW much loss in quality will this be? How big would impact be? Would it sound like a CD or what? I mean it's still analogue sound!? I'm about to order Martin Logan ECL speakers and Pioneer A-70 reciever and then a turnatable... Maybe a Rega RP6 or something similar. I want to be sure that it sounds good to my ears. Sorry about my English. It's a bit poor since I'm in hurry.



I'm not sure what you mean by 'studiomaster' but maybe it means 'mixdown master'  (either tapes, or digital).  Let's go with that.

- You can be pretty sure that some further mastering was done for the original LP release, to accommodate the limitations of that format.

- Quite possibly separate mastering was done for CD release, to accord with whatever trends (e.g. loudness levels) were popular at the time.

- The newer LPs using the CD as master may have been had additional mastering  (to accommodate the limitations of vinyl).


If you want something guaranteed to sound just like the old vinyl, you'll have to get one.

Otherwise, you must take your chances.  How did you plan to go about comparing them anyway? 

As for the sound, it's not mainly about analog v digital (except for the distortions that LP playback introduces).  It's mainly about EQ and compression and any other processing choices made during any of the mastering stages.

CD Master vs. Studio Master on LP

Reply #16 –
Quote from: krabapple on
- You can be pretty sure that some further mastering was done for the original LP release, to accommodate the limitations of that format.

[...]

- The newer LPs using the CD as master may have been had additional mastering  (to accommodate the limitations of vinyl).

These days, isn't this done on-the-fly, rather than there being some vinyl compensated digital version archived somewhere?

Quote from: krabapple on
- Quite possibly separate mastering was done for CD release, to accord with whatever trends (e.g. loudness levels) were popular at the time.

This is indeed possible, though I think it's highly debatable how often this is actually done.  I know this has been argued to death, but I cannot stress enough that DR values and armchair analysis of home brew needledrops by the average joe are far from reliable indicators of the true lineage of a vinyl pressing.

Quote from: krabapple on
It's mainly about EQ and compression and any other processing choices made during any of the mastering stages.

...which may or may not also be present on the vinyl version, of course.

Quote from: krabapple on
Otherwise, you must take your chances.

Indeed!